The idea is to make wallets that are more idiot proof/idiot resistant
This will not happen if Apple don't allow wallet application on their store. They have allowed somewhat bitcoin related apps in their store. Regardless this is not about just apple/iphone wallets, it is about all wallets needing to be idiot resistant |
|
|
|
I worry that 60% of hash power is in the hands of only two ...
Could be hacked and you lose all your money...
Can you explain the sequence of events between those two mining pools getting hacked and all bitcoin users losing their coins? In theory if the two pools were hacked and the hackers executed an attack on the blockchain then the confidence in bitcoin could be eroded to the amount that bitcoin price would crash. In reality this will not happen as when evidence of an actual attack against the network by specific pool(s) miners would pretty much instantly pull their hashpower from those pools to prevent the attacks from continuing. IMO the very large miners with significant amounts of money invested in miners would likely be monitoring a number of sources (forums, MSM, the blockchain) for potential evidence of an attack on the network by the pool they are mining on and would react accordingly a 51% attack and hacking were never really my concern as these have been shown to be mainly self defeating and therefore less likely. However monopoly of blocks is a concern as this would drive the smaller pools and miners out of btc. as I have said in a previous post there are still 9 miliion btc to be mined -do you feel safe and in a decentralized system if they all belong to ghash.io Well hackers could in theory hack two (or more pools), essentially control 51% of the network, spend massive amounts of coins on some good/service and then reverse the payment after the goods/services are received. The problem with this is that if the amounts were great enough then the price of bitcoin would likely fall more then 50%, making the attack unprofitable. |
|
|
|
The traders pay interest on the loans out of their exchange wallet. It is a way to leverage your balance to get a larger return. Any borrowing in any currency requires repayment of a certain percentage over what you borrowed. Have you ever bought a home? A car? Same thing.
I'm well aware of how trading accounts work, and loans in general. Thats why i find i it odd anyone thinks this is a killer app for Bitcoin. I think they are referring to the ability to stockpile coins and have them actually grow the way fiat used to before the monetary system was destroyed. It creates more demand because holding them is even more profitable. It should be noted that this would not be without risk. In the event of a market crash/spike then the exchange may not be able to liquidate traders' positions at a rate that would allow them to fully repay their margin loans. The lender would have to take a loss if this were to happen. QFT. Increased reward is almost always associated with increased level of risk. Remember that. And don't get too greedy. This is not 100% true in terms of lending to margin traders as any loan could potentially end up turning bad regardless of the interest rate in relation to the market rate |
|
|
|
No it's hype buying.
Technically speaking - the more liquidity in Bitcoin the more the price will decline. Merchants, when they get their hand on BTC, will dump to get $Fiat to pay their overhead, employees and taxation obligations. Newegg does $25 billion in revenue but only has like $22 million in net income, so any BTC they get they'll be dumping within minutes. You're missing the bigger picture here - it's not about liquidity, it's about Bitcoin's market share of all wealth in the world. Every new business that accepts Bitcoin as a form of payment adds value by adding UTILITY to the currency - when this is public and major FURTHER value is added as more people realize this isn't some fad, and investment continues to increase. This is true. The more people that use bitcoin the more legit of a form of payment it will become, which means more merchants will start to accept it, which means more people will use it and the cycle will continue. Once enough people start to accept bitcoin merchants will be able to pay their suppliers and other bills in bitcoin |
|
|
|
Amazon could offer to accept Bitcoin for merchants who want to accept Bitcoin. The Amazon payment gateway could accept Bitcoin without Amazon the company having to hold Bitcoin.
They would need to implement some kind of escrow service if they were to do this. If a amazon merchant were to receive bitcoin but did not ship or shipped products that were inferior to what was advertised then the amazon reputation would be damaged |
|
|
|
...
If they can figure out Facebook why can they not figure out bitcoin? What makes a blockchain.info wallet any more complicated than online banking or PayPal?
The blockchain.info wallet itself is really simpler then online banking or paypal, the issue is that it is much easier to have your coins stolen then either of the two above. There are also more phishing attempts against blockchain.info wallets |
|
|
|
i wait for 30 minutes today to get 1 confirmations  the more we have hashing power, more we need to wait for confirmation, is it right? not good if we use bitcoin for payment if we must wait for long time No the target time of 10 minutes per block is independent of the amount of hashing power. And I agree that it's not good to have to wait so long for a confirmation. Some transactions will not be confirmed in the first block after it is propagated to the network. |
|
|
|
i'm guessing the winning bidder went over spot.. was probably around what it is right now at $650. a lot of people are paying attention to the whales to get a feel for the consensus of what they're willing to spend, and if it turns out to be $650, then bitcoin will jump to that price.
What makes you say this? I would say that the majority of bidders likely bid under the price as of when they submitted their bid. As of the time of the bid there was selling pressure on the market and any participant could have purchased coins at the market price |
|
|
|
So celebrate this, what are we calling it? Victory? This 'victory' for bitcoin, but know that it is a victory that can, and will, bite some of you in the ass.
Why is it going to 'bite some of us in the ass'. I've booked a hotel with expedia in the past and didn't have a problem. I used a visa card. Next time I use expedia I may get to pay with BTC. I think that would be wonderfully convenient. Can you be a little more clear? I guess the ability to chargeback on your card is what he meant. Bitcoin transactions are irreversible but I guess they will still issue refunds. Aha, yes that seems like it might be what was meant. However, if I was negotiating in good faith with expedia and they owed me a refund, I'm sure they can find some way to do it (either by sending my BTC back or by generating a payment in fiat). Companies like expedia have their reputation on the line so they have an incentive to issue a refund when one is due as people would not do business with them if they have this kind of reputation Yes, Danny Elfman with a David Spade face, I couldn't agree more. For large, well established companies, reputation is crucial. So larger companies do not really need to worry about credit card charge backs as much as their reputation. Credit card processors still need to price in chargebacks and related expenses. This is why bitcoin is so advantageous for large companies. |
|
|
|
If bitcoin is regulated like fiat, it will be as bad as fiat money and no one will use it.
That's the beauty of a decentralized currency built on a P2P network - it can't be regulated (unless interference with the internet counts as regulation). But as long as we have a need to convert between fiat and bitcoin, then governments can attempt to regulate the companies performing these services. In this case, I think WU is full of it. We don't need WU to transfer bitcoin and they know it, regulation is just a straw man. A decentralized currency like bitcoin can very much be regulated. It would need to be regulated when it is traded for fiat |
|
|
|
I would doubt this would ever happen. The reason oil is traded in dollars is because the dollar is so widely traded and the dollar market is so liquid.
There is more oil traded in a day (in terms of market price) then the market cap of bitcoin is. This would result in constant huge swings in price of bitcoin as people try to move in and out of oil.
These factors will change. The dollar will loose liquidity and bitcoin will gain liquidity (massively). Of course this will not happen overnight. Step by step "apostate" countries will leave the dollar sphere, thereby decreasing the importance of USD as reserve currency. You're reversing cause and effect in your argument: The USD is widely traded and liquid, because oil is traded in dollars. Not the other way around. The amount of money that is traded in oil is small compared to total trade based in dollars. There is no way that oil causes trillions of dollars of trade per day when only ~$9 billion worth of oil is consumed (and traded) per day (based on oil trading @ $100/barrel) The dollar is heavily traded and liquid because it is backed by the US economy and the US economy is very big. Even a portion of that 9 billion of capital flowing into bit coin would be huge for us. That would undoubtedly reverberate widely in western economies. But the point is that oil traders would massively impact the price of bitcoin as they traded into and out of oil. In order for something to be traded in a certain unit of measure the unit of measure (currency) needs to already be trading at volumes that vastly exceed the additional trading volume that this something would create. |
|
|
|
Russia and US are always against the other and try to defeat the other. The USA is the largest economy and the dollar is accepted as most reliable and valuable currency by most people in the world. Most goods or services are priced at dollar, even the cryptocurrency at the moment. To crash dollar system is not easy by any country even the Russia. In the future BTC will get accepted by the majority of the population then maybe BTC has the chance to take over dollar.
Why would Russia want to destroy this? They have been our ally for a world war and are our trading partner now Have not u heard of cold war between Russia and USA ? Moreover, Putin does not like US's stance on Ukraine in the recent aggression. Yes we had the cold war, however there was not actually any fighting directly between the US and Russia. Putin is an old KGB agent though. Old habits die hard. I don't think he can do much more than saber rattle quite frankly. In a real shooting war with the west he would be way out gunned. This may be true but Russia has a lot to lose and the chances of them loosing are greater now then in the cold war. This is all about prediction. U never know what is actually happening deep inside China & Russia, because they are not so open like Western world. China holds trillions of dollars and trillions more of other countries currencies. If China were to destroy the US dollar then they would lose money on those dollar investments. In reality, dollar holding does not take place in a country's territory. It is shown on book. That is the reason US could freeze Putin's holding in swiss banks, because in reality the dollar is physically stored at US, where swiss bank cant do anything. They just need to erase Putin's holding from the book. So, in short, China cant destroy USD directly like that. It is achieved through business and sanctions. And if Russia unites with China, US's business activity will surely take a hit. The point is that if China were to take actions that were damaging to to the US Dollar then they themselves would take a hit as holders of Trillions of US Dollars. |
|
|
|
Block chain says this address has BTC 1.1 .. My wallet says BTC 1.5 ... should be 1.5
I've heard Blockchain isn't always right, another spot to check possibly?
19Z9E7bHdHkWBVpKnkaQYJd56PiLvUXBy8
What wallet service do you use? If it is multibit, then it can sometimes show incorrect balances for a number of reasons. I would suggest to restart and reset your wallet to see if it will resolve itself this way. It should also be noted that most wallets will contain more then one bitcoin address. |
|
|
|
|
The bitcoin foundation is really nothing more then a group of people who guide the "direction" of where bitcoin is headed in terms of it's code. It also attempts to increase public awareness.
|
|
|
|
One thing we can count on, they won't dump the coins on an exchange. They're gonna save them.
Whoever it is might slowly trickle dump them over a period of months and make an easy million if they got them a bit below the market price. They will probably keep them, but you never know. i dont care about who got them or how much for. but for the sake of people giving scenario's.. heres one. current exchange price ~ $600 imagine if the coins in auction went for $300. th smart thing to do would be to SLOWLY over many days, to avoid a crash.. sell half, to recoop losses. and then keep the other half free and clear ... or hoard 100% of them as an investment It is likely a participant attempting to start/build upon a very large bitcoin position. IMO it would be unlikely that someone buying all of the blocks would be trying to execute an arbitrage of any kind |
|
|
|
the government own all birth certificates and social security numbers. so lets let anyone have that info.. yea? government owns the tax office. so lets make all that info public yea?
if you know someone in the military doing special ops. lets reveal his location and missions publicly, lets even put a live feed of his location on googlemaps, yea?
or do you prefer a private life and have bitcoin as a financial system where you can put funds into and it not be publicly linked to you. do you really want the government to set precedent by making it standard practice to link bitcoin addresses to peoples public info.. and then simply shout it out publicly.
or do you prefer atleast some privacy?
what other people pay for their bitcoins is there business.
Now I remember why I had you on "ignore". Your strawmen aren't impressing me. If the government starts selling birth certificates, or social security numbers, then I would expect them to announce what the price will be. If they are going to sell military secrets, then I expect the amount that they collect from that sale to be made public as well. If they are going to sell bitcoins, then I expect them to announce how much they acquired. I don't care who bought them, but I think its reasonable to expect the government to make public the government's revenues. I said absolutely nothing about "link bitcoin addresses to peoples public info.. and then simply shout it out publicly", and your implying is doesn't make it so. Try to focus on the words. They actually have meaning beyond what your hysteria wants you to believe. There are certain expectations of privacy when people engage in certain financial transactions. A large market participant has an incentive to keep his buying price secret from the market so the price cannot be manipulated around his actions. If a bidder is able to not have the value of his bid be made public then he is able to bid at a higher price, allowing the government to yield additional monies from the auction. While the winning bid amounts would be public interest, the assets being sold were not purchased with taxpayer funds so the public does not have a legitimate "need to know" the price of the winning bids as it is not their funds at stake. All of your bashing of members of the PD signature campaign, and stating the fact that you are ignoring members of the PD signature campaign (you are clearly not even ignoring the quoted member as your quoted his original post that you would not be able to see if you were ignoring him) are off topic. It is against forum policy to post off topic. I kindly request that to stop this. |
|
|
|
If this bidder paid above market price then he has an incentive to tell us what the price is.
If he paid below market price then he has an incentive to keep the price secret.
Losing bidders all have an incentive to keep their bids secret until they can acquire some more bitcoins.
Why would the losing bidders want to keep their bids secret? All that it would mean is that the price they offered is less then the price paid by the winner. They have even more of a reason to not need to keep their bid secret if they bid below the market price at the time (see above quote) |
|
|
|
I worry that 60% of hash power is in the hands of only two ...
Could be hacked and you lose all your money...
Can you explain the sequence of events between those two mining pools getting hacked and all bitcoin users losing their coins? In theory if the two pools were hacked and the hackers executed an attack on the blockchain then the confidence in bitcoin could be eroded to the amount that bitcoin price would crash. In reality this will not happen as when evidence of an actual attack against the network by specific pool(s) miners would pretty much instantly pull their hashpower from those pools to prevent the attacks from continuing. IMO the very large miners with significant amounts of money invested in miners would likely be monitoring a number of sources (forums, MSM, the blockchain) for potential evidence of an attack on the network by the pool they are mining on and would react accordingly |
|
|
|
The traders pay interest on the loans out of their exchange wallet. It is a way to leverage your balance to get a larger return. Any borrowing in any currency requires repayment of a certain percentage over what you borrowed. Have you ever bought a home? A car? Same thing.
I'm well aware of how trading accounts work, and loans in general. Thats why i find i it odd anyone thinks this is a killer app for Bitcoin. I think they are referring to the ability to stockpile coins and have them actually grow the way fiat used to before the monetary system was destroyed. It creates more demand because holding them is even more profitable. It should be noted that this would not be without risk. In the event of a market crash/spike then the exchange may not be able to liquidate traders' positions at a rate that would allow them to fully repay their margin loans. The lender would have to take a loss if this were to happen. |
|
|
|
Didn't Overstock send the price up by $100 or something? Newegg news is way bigger
We have to wait for the news to be properly confirmed first, so far this is only a rumour, when we see them actively using it on their checkout then it's news, the problem with these websites that suddenly declare they accept Bitcoin is they do a pretty poor job of showing it. It is confirmed that they are starting to accept bitcoin |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
